tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post115625384539581533..comments2016-12-07T13:10:55.991-05:00Comments on edward_ winkleman: Does Explanation Destroy Art?Edward_http://www.blogger.com/profile/00110804435781673357noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156776893261843322006-08-28T10:54:00.000-04:002006-08-28T10:54:00.000-04:00If more of the population would be open to feeling...If more of the population would be open to feeling the moment,and keep our mouths and minds silent. we could possibility open a realm into a balance of understanding, our time, together.Ultimatly, it doesnt matter how many words your given and how much information you can retain..............when your dead no one can ask you for an statement.But those who expereance,Are brave to be open,and feel , will remember the feelings you shared.<BR/> Is there any one who could colapse an internal universe of emmotion into letters?. ,castlemarcinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156699530807458532006-08-27T13:25:00.000-04:002006-08-27T13:25:00.000-04:00Wow, Ed this turned into a great post in that it w...Wow, Ed this turned into a great post in that it was open ended enough to really drive discussion. I haven't read every comment, but I will because there seems to be a lot of great stuff being said. <BR/><BR/>Fisher's story about the docent brought out one of the big problem's that can happen when a lot of "cliff notes are provided" and i think that effect is the main thing that seems to bug people about this issue. You get the feeling in a lot of work that the explanation is meant to intimidate the viewer and forstall an honest response to the work itself. This is also very much the opinion I have of artist's bio's, which often seem to scream-- MOMA bought it and I went to Yale, so you must like this. ( or you are dumb )<BR/><BR/>The whole issue also links to the question of giving titles to works which I always find hard.John Morrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03608836129932617030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156445574617606592006-08-24T14:52:00.000-04:002006-08-24T14:52:00.000-04:00I recently saw an interview with Henry Moore where...I recently saw an interview with Henry Moore where he said that he thinks it is important that artists don't talk too much about their work as it may lead to future work being 'just' a fulfillment of concepts...julianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13987909104314331870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156385341989945392006-08-23T22:09:00.000-04:002006-08-23T22:09:00.000-04:00I love explanation when it's done in an impartial ...I love explanation when it's done in an impartial context by an intelligent person, eg. academic criticism about an artist who is no longer living.<BR/><BR/>But most explanation is not impartial. Curators or artists have an agenda: to inflate the quality of the work. To me, these type of texts have an over-reaching or even grandiose quality.<BR/><BR/>When the waiter at an Italian restaurant supplies some luscious adjectives to describe some overpriced swill, is he "providing a context to enhance your experience", or is he attempting to <I>create</I> your experience via the power of persuasion?<BR/><BR/>The work can be trusted. Words are more difficult to trust.monogamousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156379045585360732006-08-23T20:24:00.000-04:002006-08-23T20:24:00.000-04:00That's a cute spinWhere is the spin? I referenced...<I>That's a cute spin</I><BR/><BR/>Where is the spin? I referenced Oxford, Cambridge & Webster. Each lead with “Flattery” as excessive, insincere & self serving.<BR/><BR/>Forgive me if I missed someone, Cedric’s is the only post that mentions context. Most think first of external context, those elements we agree already exist and hold value, like history, style or tradition (similar to the way Oxford, Cambridge and Webster share a common definition for a word.) <BR/><BR/>Internal context is the fuel of creativity. It is powered by those elements inside an individual that are the foundation of a unique perspective (similar to the way Shakespeare created or derived words to augment his quality of experience and incorporated them into his work.) This internal context is fragile when set aside the mass of external context. Think about your average observant middle school kid and the onslaught of mass media/advertising.<BR/><BR/><I>Many artists I know are so secure in what they're doing that the oddest interpretation of their work imaginable seems to only amuse them.</I><BR/><BR/>That an artist is amused by odd interpretations does not address explanations. It suggests that the artist has made the Darwinian cut and trusts/values her/his internal context.<BR/><BR/>What would the wall text for Van Gogh said about him in his time? What gallery owner/director would have the wherewithal to equip Van Gogh’s influence on artists of the future. His influence was established by artist who ignored his lack of “external” contribution an digested him on their own terms.lou gagnonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156367815639509492006-08-23T17:16:00.000-04:002006-08-23T17:16:00.000-04:00Excellent post, fascinating discussion; thanks!I f...Excellent post, fascinating discussion; thanks!<BR/><BR/>I first encountered this idea (“Never explain!”) as a sort of insider/elitist, mentor-to-apprentice directive about not pulling the curtain back to reveal to the hoi polloi the man behind the illusion, the machinery behind the magic. I experienced it at the time as a rebuke to my naiveté, a kind of intentionally obscure explanation of charisma from those with it to those who would never have any. It didn’t at all suit my egalitarian sense of life as I thought us 60’s progressives were trying to recraft it, but it did resonate with my observations about how effortlessly almost any art seemed to divide the audience into those who got it, and those who were clueless. <BR/><BR/>So, yet another facet of the issue, one that seems both smarmy and inevitable: Art as Showmanship.<BR/>Count me out of that, says my rational mind (or is that my conscience?). But I still resist “explaining” my own work. It feels like moving in the wrong direction compared to actually making it, both because of how much I relish the non-verbal nature of the process, and because of how conscious I am that I’m trying to create something that requires no explanation... I don’t want to break my own spell, let alone interfere with the chance of actually casting one.<BR/><BR/>But this has nothing much to do with what anyone else might say or write about my work, or what I might say about anyone else's. This seems a totally parallel activity, equally able to justify itself or not, and equally to be clamoring for attention. It’s a new creation and thus always chiefly about its creator, and never actually an explanation of the work that is supposed to be the pretext for it. Comprehensive “explanations,” per se, seem quite impossible to me, from anyone, a fact worth acknowledging, no matter how rarely:)David Coffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05538959960447063231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156366994319269772006-08-23T17:03:00.000-04:002006-08-23T17:03:00.000-04:00Clement Greenberg is right: explanation flattens a...Clement Greenberg is right: explanation flattens art.<BR/>On the other hand, explication exalts and extends it. <BR/>A restaurant critic who explains a dinner will speak of sociology, history, economics and what have you. But the subject is gastronomy, and this requires explication to make the banquet complete. Can I enjoy the meal without explication? Probably, but some things are an acquired taste.h lowehttp://www.geocities.com/heatherjlowe/sklog.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156362205146453912006-08-23T15:43:00.000-04:002006-08-23T15:43:00.000-04:00oops..."subjugued" is no english word, right?it's ...oops..."subjugued" is no english word, right?<BR/><BR/>it's subjugated. (+ many typos as usual)<BR/><BR/>CedricCedric Caspesyannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156361767369078372006-08-23T15:36:00.000-04:002006-08-23T15:36:00.000-04:00David:>>>It's like asking a painter what brand of ...David:<BR/>>>>It's like asking a painter what brand of paint they prefer. Might be something I'm marginally curious about, but it certainly <BR/><BR/>>>>>wouldn't be the first thing I'd want to know.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Actually I've talked with painters that claim the brand of paint is extremely important and that most paint tubes suck. Some <BR/><BR/>have their paint made. In the age of post-conceptualism every provenances of your material is at stake. The tableau is not <BR/><BR/>merely a tableau anymore, it's an object filled with origins, causes and consequences.<BR/><BR/><BR/>cnonymous<BR/>>>>For many, words validate art. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Yes well the danger is to fall into complete dellusion that we love a work because we are able<BR/>to talk about it so well. I mean, Guido Of Arezzo dissected the musical scale<BR/>a millenary ago but sometimes it seems we are doing this with art only since 50 years. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>>>>a painting of a particular scene in a novel would destroy the prose<BR/><BR/>That's because art is always a failure when imagination is always much better.<BR/><BR/>If we stop comparing with imagination, we can come to reason why or why not<BR/>a painting supports, accompanies, flatters, a novel.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Edward<BR/>>>>>to describe it in words could destroy it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>That's Orpheus Syndrome. You know sometimes you discover how an artist work. You've followed them,<BR/>scrutinized everything they did step by step, from research to finalization, and yet...Yet sometimes<BR/>even though you came to a close understanding of how an artist works it is better not to tell them.<BR/>Some artists are great simply because they don't realize how they proceed, or try to never think about it. <BR/>It's just like that. That doesn't mean understanding how the art works will destroy it, we should be able to<BR/>differentiate the qualities of tricks and illusions in our evaluation.<BR/><BR/>It's not because I can see the ceiling of Pirates Of The Caribbean at Walt Disney World that I'm unable to enjoy the ride.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Deborah:<BR/>>>>>There's a difference between explaining art and any of the following:<BR/>>>>providing context, telling the story of its making.....<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hmm...I'm sorry to disagree. Any artwork is anthropologic. What the artist or curator explains about the intentions of an <BR/><BR/>artwork will always remain only a part of the theorem for me. If I want to evaluate a work I need to look at how form originated. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes that study can lead to ethical or philosophical conflicts that serve criticism really well. You need to compare <BR/><BR/>intention with "how it's being forwarded", that's really how you can evaluate the success of an art piece. This said..."providing <BR/><BR/>context" can mean lots of things. It's great to have a sense of where the artist is coming from, but you don't always need to <BR/><BR/>have a clear understanding of broader historical context to understand the work. Let's just say that studying the means and <BR/><BR/>technologies used by an artist will often reveal a lot about context in itself.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Edward<BR/>>>>>This = right and wrong, and that does "kill" art. <BR/>>>>Can you provide an examaple? <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Can I?<BR/><BR/>Sentimentalism is wrong and distanciation is cool so <BR/>Tchaikovsky must suck and it's music for children that you<BR/>you should throw out the window by 16.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Deborah:<BR/>>>>>Hope this makes sense. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Fantastic example! Wow!<BR/><BR/>I think this was also an opportunity for you because the next time<BR/>you can warn students about that. There must be a way to warn people<BR/>about these effects.<BR/><BR/>Hawkinson's art is often pretty self-explanative<BR/>so that was an easy trap. Ironically is art often<BR/>consists of traps and trompe-l'oeils.<BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/>Edward:<BR/>>>>The fact that the other half of your students left with a rich experience indicates the art itself was in no way lessened by the <BR/><BR/>>>>>docent's unengaging presentation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>This is a clear example of an art which is presented through the lense of process.<BR/>Most of the time I think discussing about Hawkinson will imply describing the methods he<BR/>used to do a work. I totally encourage that lecture as it is often quite interesting. <BR/>The danger comes when we are unable to differentiate a great piece from Hawkinson<BR/>from one that is merely a fun pun, all this because we are subjugued by the methods<BR/>of working of an artist. Ahhh the wonders of impertinence...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Edward<BR/>>>>>The implication that artmaking is some fragile process that outside influence can derail doesn't make sense to me..<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, but the danger with words is when they are "non-diegetic" to the artwork (gosh forgive this borrowing of a cinema term,<BR/>for lack of a better term), when they are applicated to the work in statement or press release but are not intrinsically part of the work. Than outside influences and exaggerated comparisons can be totally derailing to artmaking. What a curator (or decent) assumes about a work is sometimes quite off the track and it becomes a danger when in institutions some <BR/>art is presented under such funhouse-mirror deforming appreciations.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Deborah<BR/>>>>> I would prefer an art world in which there was no authority <BR/><BR/>Quote of the month!<BR/><BR/>That's a damn battle when you don't have a phd in philosophy or litterature.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Onesock:<BR/>>>>>outside influences to determine meaning (which is usually the case no?)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yes, I think that consensus can overpower intention in matters of interpretation.<BR/>The problem is that most art never reach consensus before opinion is being manipulated<BR/>by people hired to "defend" the artwork or artist (some artists are specifically controlling<BR/>about these aspects as you mentioned).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also it remains to questions wrether meaning in art is a necessity or reductive.<BR/>I think that was part of the problem exposed here. I will repeat myself but I<BR/>think meaning occurs in the process (including research, emotional crisis, history of artmaking, etc),<BR/>not in how you explain a work (that would be when the external bias of words can come into conflict).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Cedric Caspesyan<BR/>centiment@hotmail.comCedric Caspesyannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156361271175594002006-08-23T15:27:00.000-04:002006-08-23T15:27:00.000-04:00explanation destroys ambiguity, ambiguity is the s...<I>explanation destroys ambiguity, ambiguity is the spice of art, the heady scent that keeps you tracking.</I><BR/><BR/>While I see how that applies in some instances, I can't let that pass as if an absolute. Ambiguity is essential to some artists' processes, but not all. And I can't see where one is any better than the other judging by the only measure that matters: the final work.Edward_http://www.blogger.com/profile/00110804435781673357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156356379108990732006-08-23T14:06:00.000-04:002006-08-23T14:06:00.000-04:00Tim - Well said! (explanation destroys ambiguity, ...Tim - Well said! (<I>explanation destroys ambiguity, ambiguity is the spice of art, the heady scent that keeps you tracking.</I>)Henrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156353901856450252006-08-23T13:25:00.000-04:002006-08-23T13:25:00.000-04:00I am the individual who posted the "Explanation De...I am the individual who posted the "Explanation Destroys Art" comment on GalleryHopper.<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised and pleased to see this discussion taking place. As I said in my original comment, "This statement may sound extreme. But there is some trut to the statement." And as many others have commented here, there is a point to be made, although not to be taken too literally. There is a thought to be had, a consideration to be made.<BR/><BR/>I originally planned to add that art, when experienced, is an exchange. I believe wholeheartedly in the pure, individual, personal interpretation of art, with little to no outside influence or explanation. I believe this to be art in its purest form. <BR/><BR/>It would be ideal if all art was encountered and experienced in this way, the experience influenced only by what each of us holds inside ourselves. Whether or not more is learned about the art and artist, either of our own accord or someone else's interpretation after the fact is, in my opinion, a secondary consideration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156348976887562762006-08-23T12:02:00.000-04:002006-08-23T12:02:00.000-04:00explanation destroys ambiguity, ambiguity is the s...explanation destroys ambiguity, ambiguity is the spice of art, the heady scent that keeps you tracking.<BR/><BR/>The mystery almost always turns out to be more interesting than the answer, after the answer, we go home.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04096399456059275260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156347237703845992006-08-23T11:33:00.000-04:002006-08-23T11:33:00.000-04:00What I would find interesting is to hear the music...What I would find interesting is to hear the music the artist was listening to while creating the work as I view the artwork. This would probably be equally revelatory to the art as any words.mlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156345471707338172006-08-23T11:04:00.000-04:002006-08-23T11:04:00.000-04:00Or I should say, the goal of an artist is to find ...Or I should say, the goal of an artist is to find that community that provides jsust the right balance of acceptance and resistance to keep things going (not in a vacuum). SO the "eplanation" (for lack of another word) serves as an extra entryway into that community, communicating to others "this is what I believe" (to stael an NPR quote)<BR/><BR/>Of course I am focusing on how the text supports and affects (works for) the artist rather than the viewer.onesockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151985191889846526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156345253621280872006-08-23T11:00:00.000-04:002006-08-23T11:00:00.000-04:00Words are not necessarily stronger, although I thi...Words are not necessarily stronger, although I think people do give them a lot of weight because words are how we communicate in our daily lives. It is our natural form of communication, not open to much interpretation, so words can change our experience of visual art but not destroy it. Destruction implies that the work of art would no longer exist. <BR/><BR/>What about writers? Aren't they just as prone to overreact to criticism ? Maybe we need to make a distinction between the artwork and the artist's ego?William Knipscherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05315122236821166332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156344880236707672006-08-23T10:54:00.000-04:002006-08-23T10:54:00.000-04:00So many intelligent things have been mentioned her...So many intelligent things have been mentioned here about the enhancement or diminishing of the experience of art with statements. And I agree with the distinctions made between the authoritaive, didactic text or lectures and the simple guides or entyways into a work.<BR/><BR/>But I am intrigued by the way in which language can influence the artist (touched on breifly in this discussion). It reminds me of something Mike Kelly once mentioned about his (perhaps) most famous work, the stuffed toys and blankets work. If you read any explanatory text on this work it probably mentions child abuse or abandonment, etc. According to the artist, these were not what he originally intended the work to evoke, but one he read these descriptions he accepted and adopted that sort of discourse surrounding the pieces. <BR/><BR/>Now he has also stated firmly that other language surrounding other work is off the mark. And Kelly has been incredibly active in "explaning" the work and controlling the discourse about it. But I think it is interesting that in at least one instance he allowed outside influences to determine meaning (which is usually the case no?)and affect how HE saw the work.<BR/><BR/>In my circumstance as an artist, I am almost completely devoid of any outside influence or feedback. This can be liberating in the sense that it forces me to trust my own mind and follow my own instincts without the expectation of its reception. I certainly care about its reception, and sometimes need outside feedback to get things going to point to other directions or butress myself when following shaky ground. It can be stiffling when there is no feedback. So perhaps when an artist is in an "odd-duck" situation where any explanation of the work mostly serves the purpose of convincing, it is better to not wholly engage in the community because you are always pushing up against something that is trying to invalidate what you do, or subtly pressure you to do something else.onesockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14151985191889846526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156339975447884252006-08-23T09:32:00.000-04:002006-08-23T09:32:00.000-04:00Hey Edward,I see what you are saying. I have actua...Hey Edward,<BR/>I see what you are saying. I have actually written two posts about this in relationship to my own artmaking, about the <A HREF="http://deborahfisher.blogspot.com/2006/07/fuck-artists-statement.html" REL="nofollow">artist's statement</A> and <A HREF="http://deborahfisher.blogspot.com/2006/07/artists-who-write.html" REL="nofollow">artists who write</A>. I know you have written above that you are not talking about statements, but I do think this is relevant because the statement is an explanatory format, with explanatory expectations. So bear with me.<BR/><BR/>I don't think words kill art--I write all the time and know too many other artists who need to write about how they make their own work and the context they work in. I do think there is a difference between <I>explaining</I> one's work and providing context or information. <BR/><BR/>And I have to admit that I do not have balls of steel on this issue. I admit that I have been in my studio, confused about what on earth mess I have gotten myself into, and made stupid choices because they would sound good in an artist's statement. Or to put it another way, I have forced work to a conclusion too soon because I wanted to be able to say what it is "about". <BR/><BR/>I don't think this is the same as writing about one's work. While I don't blame any artist who is not verbally inclined, I do think that being able to talk about one's work and what is happening with it is extremely important to me. I write about my own work a LOT. But I would rather write as an artist--in an exploratory way that does not encompass or explain--and not as an authority (who delivers the totality of a nonverbal relationship in a verbal format).<BR/><BR/>IMO, this whole argument is semantic. Words are not the devil, and the greatest fun of art is the joy of translating a nonverbal experience or object (I don't pick a side on this one) into words--or creating meaning. That is what art is <I>for</I>, IMO, on a fundamental level. <BR/><BR/>But the word <I>explain</I> connotes a specific point of view: I know what is happening here, and you don't, and I will <I>explain</I> it to you. To explain is to be authoritative, and I am an idealist but I would prefer an art world in which there was no authority because then we would all be forced to do the hard work of figuring out what we like and why by looking and thinking. <BR/><BR/>This is not ungenerous or elitist or about withholding information. Information, context, what other people think of the work--this is all thickening the stew. It's incredibly important, and IMO it's pretty silly for an artist to get all up in arms about having to divulge context, talk about the work, or accept that other people are looking and talking. <BR/><BR/>I just hate the authority angle. Not because I am some feelgoody populist, but because every single time I think I am an authority in my studio I make something lame. Because authority is comforting, and I do my best work when I reach for what is uncomfortable and follow through completely on that reach.fisher6000http://www.blogger.com/profile/11283028429391828013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156339663639603462006-08-23T09:27:00.000-04:002006-08-23T09:27:00.000-04:00God. You have no idea! It's not a myth that artist...God. You have no idea! It's not a myth that artists (at least this one) are sensitive. My point was that I think most artists have very sharp antennas that pick up all kinds of crap--important stuff like other artists' investigations, ideas from literature and philosophy and science, right down to a shallow, catty comment overheard at an opening. ("David Salle already did this 20 years ago." "You're kidding me. Blue?" It's these little meaningless snipes that can send an artist into a funk. Any time some one hints my work is too much like someone else's, I freak. Sometimes I change directions; sometimes I suspect that's ill-advised. I think this is one practical reason artists are suspicious of words.Bnonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156337895480284132006-08-23T08:58:00.000-04:002006-08-23T08:58:00.000-04:00Thanks Fisher6000. That's an excellent example of ...Thanks Fisher6000. <BR/><BR/>That's an excellent example of how explanation can affect the experience of art, but I'm still not convinced it impacted the art or artmaking* in anyway, which is what "explanation destroys art" implies to me (and yes, we're back at the old question of whether art is an object or an experience, with me on the "object" side). The fact that the other half of your students left with a rich experience indicates the art itself was in no way lessened by the docent's unengaging presentation.<BR/><BR/>The students who toured with you did discuss and, I assume, explain their take on TH's work later in class, so it's not like their explanations are a problem here. The problem seems to have been the authority figure explanation, which led most of the other half (but you indicate not all) to go lazy, which may reflect more about the students who dropped the ball than anything else.<BR/><BR/>And students are a specific subsection of the art viewing public. Despite what seems a more open approach in your class, they are encouraged most everywhere else to regurgitate the "right" answer, so I wouldn't consider their response indicative of a universal response to a docent's tour. The fact that they became defensive is interesting, but....<BR/><BR/>*I guess I'm stuck on this because I can't see how what bnon says is true:<BR/><BR/><I>However, there is one way that explanation does indeed destroy art. I think as an artist is creating new work and thinking new ideas, anything at all can be an influence (that's why artists are artists, we're synthesizers) and words can totally kill an idea</I><BR/><BR/>The implication that artmaking is some fragile process that outside influence can derail doesn't make sense to me...but then I don't make art, so...Edward_http://www.blogger.com/profile/00110804435781673357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156336680632062682006-08-23T08:38:00.000-04:002006-08-23T08:38:00.000-04:00Example:I went with a bunch of art appreciation st...Example:<BR/><BR/>I went with a bunch of art appreciation students to see the Tim Hawkinson show at the Whitney a couple of years ago. <BR/><BR/>About half of them followed around a docent-led tour that explained each piece. Half walked around with me or wandered around alone. Everyone wrote a paper.<BR/><BR/>With very few exceptions, docent-tour papers were lackluster and more than that, they all assigned exactly the same meaning--the meaning they were delivered--to the art. I asked specific questions about what the formal qualities of TH's work did to create a meaning, and they perceived that the docent had told them the "right" answers to these questions. <BR/><BR/>I didn't tell students what to think of TH's work, and the students who walked around alone didn't get any verbal extras, and these papers reflected a different problem-solving process. They free-associated, culled from their own histories and experience, actually looked at the work for themselves... They all had very different answers to the questions, and they were all "right". And their observations and ideas were comparatively rich and well thought out. <BR/><BR/>It was obvious from the quality of the papers, and the quality of the discussion after the papers were returned, that these students who were not given the right answer had more fun, were more engaged in the work, had more of a personal stake. OTOH, the students who took the tour had a really hard time engaging the work personally, did not want to leave behind what the docent said, and were generally more hard-headed because they felt that they had the right answer. <BR/><BR/>This is hardly scientific, but it leads me to believe that "knowing" the "right answer" about art from an "authority figure" like a docent is not conducive to developing a personal relationship to the work. I think that this is different from providing information, particularly in a questioning context. I boned up on Hawkinson and told my students a lot of facts about how he makes stuff, and we all watched an Art:21 episode with him, so there was lots of context. The context or factual information was important--it helped deepen the "second group's" arguments and separated fluffy sentimentalism from sharp, precise meaning. <BR/><BR/>Hope this makes sense.fisher6000http://www.blogger.com/profile/11283028429391828013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156334674156219482006-08-23T08:04:00.000-04:002006-08-23T08:04:00.000-04:00This = right and wrong, and that does "kill" art. ...<I>This = right and wrong, and that does "kill" art. </I><BR/><BR/>Can you provide an examaple?Edward_http://www.blogger.com/profile/00110804435781673357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156332609330312592006-08-23T07:30:00.000-04:002006-08-23T07:30:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.kurthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08623746609059372431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156332148757351952006-08-23T07:22:00.000-04:002006-08-23T07:22:00.000-04:00There's a difference between explaining art and an...There's a difference between <I>explaining</I> art and any of the following:<BR/><BR/>providing context, telling the story of its making, talking about the history of the artist, talking about what the artist was thinking about, making comparisons between that artist and other works or artists, free-associating about the imagery, usw. <BR/><BR/>The problem with the word explain is that it implies reduction and a sense of authority. This = right and wrong, and that does "kill" art. <BR/><BR/>Art is not linear. My "explanation" is not going to be the same as yours. And this is just my opinion, but art is fundamentally about not knowing--about discovery. So to have it explained by anyone inserts this figure of authority, and that authority truncates exploration, or discourse. <BR/><BR/>Is the argument semantic like that?fisher6000http://www.blogger.com/profile/11283028429391828013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12363995.post-1156312240673292312006-08-23T01:50:00.000-04:002006-08-23T01:50:00.000-04:00Explanation flattens art.Explanation flattens art.Clement Greenberghttp://www.davidpalmerstudio.com/Studio/studio.htmlnoreply@blogger.com